Related Articles

Landowners, Pipes Square Off Over Notification Issues

Landowners and interstate pipelines actually agreed on something
last week - neither were particularly thrilled with some of the
initiatives proposed by FERC for carving out a greater role for
landowners in the certificate process. But the reasons for their
dissatisfaction were completely opposite.

In commenting on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
dealing with landowner issues, landowners argued that the
Commission was so wrapped up with "details" in the NOPR that it
missed the crux of the landowner-pipeline problem, which they
believe could be partly remedied if FERC were to require pipes to
notify potentially affected landowners of new greenfield projects
"prior" to filing applications at FERC and to engage in
collaboration from the outset. They contend the Commission's NOPR,
which was issued in late April, falls far short on this score. It
proposes that pipelines alert landowners about new Section 7(c)
projects by certified mail within three business days "after"
filing their applications at FERC [RM98-18].

"The pipeline industry seems more willing to quarrel about the
details of how to deal with landowners than to face the heart of
the problem. Should landowners be involved sooner rather than
later?...Should the letters [to landowners] go out the day before,
the day of, or the day after the filing of an application with the
Commission? Should the letters include the FERC docket number?
Should letters be sent certified mail, or is first class good
enough? Details and more details. So what?" said Anne Marie Mueser
of the GASP Coalition, which represents landowner interests, in
comments submitted to FERC last Monday. "Sending a letter to
[landowners] is a nice touch, but it does not cure what is wrong
with the process."

Although citing its appreciation for FERC's efforts, GASP said
the notification process outlined in the NOPR would not create a
"level playing field" and would be "insufficient to resolve
problems" between landowners and pipelines. It further accused the
Commission of being "unable or unwilling to control abuses" of
pipelines towards landowners, and said that pipelines' use of
eminent domain to take landowners' property was "unconstitutional
as well as unconscionable."

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), in
contrast, supported the three-day, post-filing notification
requirement for Section 7(c) projects, saying it "strikes an
appropriate balance" between the needs of affected landowners and
the needs of the pipelines for timely Commission review of their
project filings.

But INGAA and individual pipelines said they would oppose any
sort of mandate requiring formal pre-filing notification of
landowners, such as through pipeline-landowner meetings, to give
them a greater role in the project siting process. Most pipelines
already voluntarily hold such meetings with landowners, and find
them to be "beneficial" for working out problems associated with
their projects, Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. told FERC. But
mandating such "pre-filing meetings where [a] pipeline either lacks
sufficient details about a project's route or even its size is more
likely to create issues than to resolve them...The timing and
breadth of those meetings should not be dictated by the
Commission." The Process Gas Consumers Group (PGC), a group of
industrial gas users, agreed, saying the meetings "should be left
to the discretion of the pipeline."

Pipelines also took issue with a NOPR initiative requiring them
to give landowners at least 30 days notice prior to starting
construction on replacement facilities or under their blanket
certificate. Although they favor landowner notification for
case-specific certificate applications, INGAA and others insist
such a requirement shouldn't be imposed on unplanned replacement
projects (i.e. plugging a leak, equipment failure or corrosion)
because often these projects can't wait 30 days to be addressed.

INGAA called FERC's 30-day notification proposal for
blanket-certificate projects unessential. "If a pipeline is going
to perform new construction under its blanket certificate, the
pipeline must already have or have obtained the necessary
right-of-way, and in the normal course of business would notify the
resident prior to entering the property." Specifically, it asked
FERC to eliminate altogether the proposed prior notice period for
unplanned maintenance and replacement projects, and to reduce the
notice period from 30 days to three days (or a time period provided
for in an easement agreement) for planned pipeline work.

Susan Parker

&COPY;Copyright 1999 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rights
reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or
redistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent of
Intelligence Press, Inc.

Restricted Content

About NGI

Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), is a leading provider of natural gas, shale news and market information for the deregulated North American natural gas industry. Since the first issue of Natural Gas Intelligence was published in 1981, NGI has provided key pricing and data relied upon daily by thousands of industry participants in the U.S, Canada and Mexico as well as Central and South America, Europe and Asia.